Yes, again I totally agree. Eric was, at least in my opinion, attempting to make an inappropriate extrapolation from approved Doc P (not actually 'Part P') to EICRs and, even that inappropriate extrapolation was from what i doubt was the intended spirit of even Approved Doc P.
There may be an EIC (and, even if it existed, it only may be 'available') but, yes, if there is one, it will indicate the relevant edition of BS7671.
It would - although, again, we are talking about Approved Document P, not 'Part P' (which says nothing about BS7671). For the benefit of others who may be reading this, I perhaps should add that even Approved Doc P does not say that "work should comply with" any edition of BS7671 - it merely indicates that compliance with (a specific edition of) BS7671 is one way of satisfying the 'fundamental principles' of Part P.
Again I made my comment only for the benefit of others who my be reading this, and who may be familiar with the definition of "non-compliance" in the current edition of BS7671. You did not refer to "items" but, rather, "non-compliances" and, as I said, something which qualified as a "non-compliance" per current BS7671 definition cannot be 'ignored' ("not recorded") since, per that definition, they would presumably have to be given a C1 or C2.
I hope you don't shoot the messenger. It was not I who created this seemingly rather odd (certainly unexpected, and potentially confusing) definition of "non-compliance"
Kind Regards, John
